Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 14, 2011 7:30am-8:00am PST

7:30 am
distributed october 27. the e.i.r. found implementation of the glen park community plan would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts that could not be met kated to below a significant level. unwas transportation and circulation due to unacceptable level of service at bosworth street and diamond street intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both project and cumulative conditions and unavoidable significant impact related to air quality due to construction activities with respect to certain criteria air pollutants and ozone precursorses and finally, ann unavoidable significant impact related to air quality due to construction and operational activities that would emit toxic air contaminants and in excess of the area and air quality management district under both the project and cumulative
7:31 am
conditions. the commission would need to adopt the ceqa should the commission choose to approve the project. we would request that the commission adopt the motion before you that certified the the contents of the e.i.r. are adequate and accurate and procedures through which the final e.i.r. was prepared to comply with the provisions of ceqa, the ceqa guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative code that. concludes my presentation unless you have any questions. commissioner miguel: thank you. commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i move to certify. >> second. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion is before you for the certification of the final environmental impact report. commissioner antonini. awe aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> missioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> thank you. secretary avery: commissioners,
7:32 am
that item has been sertfied. you are on 13 a, b, c, and d and e for the glen park community plan, adoptions of the finding of the california environmental quality act and the resolution amending the general plan pursuant to san francisco charter 4.105. 13c is consideration for resolution of the amending the planning code and for the land use, height and bulk, density, and parking and established one new zoning district and make related amendments to the planning code necessary to implement the general plan as proposed to be amended pursuant to the glen park community plan. 13d, a resolution amending the zoning map for the san francisco planning code and 13e, general plan consistency and planning code section 101.1 findings. >> good afternoon, commissioners f i am jon swae and i am the
7:33 am
planning manager for the glen park community plan and i am here to present to you a series of actions we are asking the commission to take to approve the glen park community plan. the other half of the glen park team, the glen park and john likes to refer to the glen park community plan as the feel good plan of the season and there is a lot to like about the plan and the plan is enjoying broad community support through an extensive community outreach effort that we have engaged in with the plan. what i would like to do is give a quick recap on the plan and we'll discuss in detail some of the actions we will be asking you to take today. as we are all familiar with, the glen park is focused and the bart station and the commercial distribution with connections to glen park and san jose avenue. and what's really special about this area is it is a really highly transit intensive and
7:34 am
pedestrian intensive area. about 9,000 riders use the area around the bart station and what is amazing is half of the 9,000 arrive by walking. 80% of the people using the area to access the transit services arrive by transit or walking. and the plan is attempting to do four primary thins. the first is to protect and enhance the character of glen park and the unique character and especially the village atmosphere that the residents love. the second is to resolve some of the challenges posed by large scale infrastructure and the third is to really prioritize pedestrian and transit movement in the village area. and with the connection to glen cannian park and between the park and downtown and looking
7:35 am
for opportunities with high quality public space in downtown glen park. and the acts were requesting the commission today include approving a motion adopting the ceqa findings and the general plan amendments and this is different than itemized on the calendar but it also includes the consistency findings with the general plan and proposition 101 policy. and then also approving the resolutions adopting the planning code and zoning map amendments. and the ceqa findings identify the potential significant impacts in mitigations associated with the project. and they encourage the commission to make a statement of overriding consideration and in terms of bringing the neighborhood commercial district and the transit oriented neighborhood that promotes public safety and the compatible
7:36 am
use in the area. and the general plan amendment including the area plan which is the glen park community plan or known as the glen park area plan and also amending various amounts of the general plan to revens the new area plan. and we would then be amending the planning code to include the new glen park neighborhood commercial transit direction as section 138 of the code and making various related amendments to different sections related to the new neighborhood commercial district. and the city attorney has asked me to bring up a relevant clause that we would like added to the resolution should you choose to approve them today. we ask the commission to add a clause giving instruction to the city planning department and the city attorney to update the ordinances before they are sent
7:37 am
to the board of supervisors to include system of the recently legislated changes that have taken place such as the eastern neighborhood code cleanup language and a couple of sections that would effect the background text of our code ordinance. and also section 607.1 of the city center special sign district. we would just like to make sure that is noted. and the zoning map would be amended to display the new glen park neighborhood commercial transit district, of course, and also height changes to the city's height map that reflects the height changes i will discuss in a moment proposed for the glen park area. i have an update d ordinance to distribute. there are two parcels shown on the maps in the district but these were not included in that original zoning map ordinance. so i would like to read them
7:38 am
into the record and those are the block and lot number 6726, lot 27 and block number 6727, lot 23 arc. and this map shows the existing zoning in the area which is the light purple displaying the current neighborhood commercial, small scale neighborhood commercial that the amendment would change to the glen park commercial district by adding nine additional parcels. in terms of the height changes t whole area within the planned boundary and the 40 foot height district and 30x height district in the sensitive interior around diamond street and to allow a
7:39 am
5-foot height bonus for active ground commercial ewings. and that is a summary of the amendments. just to reiterate, the findings of the ceqa motion and the approval of resolutions adopting to the general planning code and we would like to thank you the economying for the interest and support and it is great to be here at this time for the adoption hearing and we are available to answer any questions you may have. commissioner miguel: thank you, jon. is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the chair of the zoning and
7:40 am
planning committee of the glen park association. i just want to say a couple of things. first of all, we are generally pleased with the way jon and jon have incorporated the plan and incorporated themselves into the plan and outreached to the glen park community. the soak has held its own public meetings as well and we think that the plan that is before you does pretty much reflect the concerns of the community. there are a couple of things that i would like to mention because i think that they include the next steps that i want to make sure you are aware of and first of all, the traffic improvement around the bart station is extremely important. and you heard from jon how much pedestrian traffic there is there and injuries occur
7:41 am
frequently and another person was injured a couple of days ago. and so we really do hope that the improvements will be given some urgency and will improve the safety of the community. and another traffic-related item is that the suggests were made about the treatment of traffic on bosworth between diamond and elk and this comes down to the inspection by the bart station and reducing it to one lane. and we understand that this require more study and we hope that it will get more study even though it is an interesting idea that should definitely be explored. thank you very much for your attention. commissioner miguel: thank you. is there additional comment?
7:42 am
>> good afternoon. i worked with nicholas on the planning committee and i am a resident in glen park for about two years now. and one thing i have noted is the i am speaking in support of the plan is there is considerable community involvement and we have san antonio progress and change in the plan and we strongly support the changes in the plan and agree it preserves the character of the community and the community that is safe and enjoyable. and a second comment is a particular comment of one of thes a pekts that is the greenway improvement between diamond and paradise and we feel and agree that the greenway
7:43 am
should be pursued as a path. however, the plan does identify the potential for studying and several additional feasibility studys is a complex issue to get involved with a lot more research from the safety perspective and will need considerable additional study. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. economyinger antonini? -- commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: this is extremely well done and well crafted and i would be in total support and i believe we can approve all four together with the ceqa and overriding concerns
7:44 am
and the map amendment and planning code amendments and the resolution clause which i understand is part of the thing to include the new language. >> second. commissioner miguel: i would like to say i am so pleased with this and the manner in which the public outreach was conducted and i look forward, i hope, in the very near future to hear from bart. a secretary avery: thank you. commissioners the motion is for approval be the changes approved by staff today. [vote taken] secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. the motion address rez louings have been approved. >> i want to thank jon and jon for all their hard work on this and lisa as well on the e.i.r. and for all the great work on this and for the community for working so well with us over the
7:45 am
last few years. i know it was a long process, but is a very productive one, so thank you very much. secretary avery: thank you. commissioners, you are on item 14, case 2011 want 1077 d for 10 cumberland street and a request for discretionary review. i am going to pass out some communications that there were members of the public who could not stay but they wanted you to have their comments. >> good afternoon, planning commission. the proposal is to product
7:46 am
parapet and will raise the overall roof line at the rear of the building an additional 2 feet. this proposal also involves a west-facing light well at the first and second levels that abut a blind wall along with some other interior alterations. the spiral staircase will be used to access the roof deck through a 3.5 foot high and this work will be set back 39 feet from the front building wall. the residential design team determined that the new firewall parapet will have minimal light and air impacts to the adjacent neighbor because the parapet will only slightly increase the overall roof height and the project is consistent with the residential design guidelines being a modest addition that is appropriately scaled and does not pose unusual light and air effects on neighboring properties. further more, views from private
7:47 am
buildings and decks are not protected under the planning code nor the residential designing guidelines. since preparation of the packets, two additional letters of opposition were received. the planning commission that i am going to pass out right now. the planning department has determined that the edition would not create a significant adverse impact to the adjacent buildings. for reasons stated above the department finds that the project does not demonstrate an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance and the planning commission could not take discretionary review. this concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions from the commission. commissioner miguel: we called the d.r. requester, but i think the d.r. requester may have left. they did leave us a note. are there any speakers here in
7:48 am
favor of the d.r. requester? if not, i will call on the project sponsor. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the planning commission today -- >> you can pull the microphone down. >> thank you. or i should grow. thank you for the time to defend our small pronth. we decided to put together some plans to build the roof deck to minimally impact the side of the building and any impact on our neighbors so we don't think that the -- to satisfy the code the parapet wall we have to build is not going to block any light or air to our neighborhood. and we just don't feel that
7:49 am
there is much more to say and i think the impact on the neighborhood will be minimal. commissioner miguel: thank you. are there any other speakers on this one? if not -- oh, yes. certainly. >> thank you very much. i am also speaking in favor of the proposed plan. secretary avery: could you state your name please? >> i am karen ar ron and we are looking at a plan that raises the height of the building a small amount and only in the back of the building and as stated it will be set back 39 feet from the street and we have reviewed the san francisco design residential design guidelines and we believe that our plan is in accordance with those. this is the only viable option for the location of our deck and we don't believe that it poses any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to light and air. and that is all. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you very much. are there any additional
7:50 am
speakers? if not, commissioners? commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i would move to not take d.r. and approve. >> second. commissioner miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: well, i talked an't that last week. and my preference is to pull in the back the deck from the side walls and given the fact that since we live cheek to jowl in the city with properties really abuting each other, pulling the deck in rather than setting it right on the property line for me is a prudent way of doing it. i happen to live in the building where the impact on somebody else is we would do that and that would be large and people would say the same thing about if they would do it. so even if it's not an issue as much about lightwells, the ability from the other people to look up and see the rail and right at the edge of the building is for me troublesome. and the reason why we are
7:51 am
retrofitting this building is because there is a new code requires to bring a parapet to a building which normally didn't have one. and if you pulled it back in, and if you pull the deck back, just by 3 feet or so, you are basically building a deck which has its own railing and keeps people away from the building edge. and that is what is general concern to me and i would say that to any project and i find the deck substantially large and almost as large as two of the units who tried to approve the other day at 480 square feet of deck. that is a lot of deck and would not really impact the quality of the deck but we would, i think, create a policy which deals more with the way buildings are retrofitted. commissioner miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: question for commissioner moore. these are parapets and the parapets would remain but the deck itself would be pulled back. commissioner moore: and i think
7:52 am
if you pull the railing of the deck -- you hold the deck back from the edge of the building, you attach the railing for the deck to the deck and don't have to build a parapet. commissioner antonini: i think part of the whole thing is from my understanding is to build the parapet and part of it might be some degree the aestheticses. maybe we could ask the project sponsor -- >> let me chime in. commissioner moore, you are referring to along the side property lines. commissioner moore: and it would pull it back. >> pull it back 2 or so feet and you would haven't the necessity for the additional parapet. i am not sure -- i believe the distance is 3 feet from building code. commissioner moore: i think you are correct. >> it wouldn't have to be fire rated but still be the necessity for the deck to have a guardrail and the height has to be a certain dimension and is probably taller than the actual parapet, the existing on the building wall. it would probably cut some of
7:53 am
the visibility down of it, but still possibly be seen. and i am -- and correct me, but you are referring to along the side on just the portion that is adjacent to the neighboring -- commissioner moore: where you have a lot of windows which indeed would perceive the parapet as definitely creating more shadow and impairment of light. and generally i think to an older building that didn't have a parapet before to add a parapet is not the prettiest thing to do. >> you are asking them to pull in 3 feet on each side in not the back but the two sides? commissioner antonini: the back and the side. >> the back is already pulled in from the base, right? as i tread plan, the back is
7:54 am
already pulling in. >> it is. and -- commissioner moore: that is correct. you are right. it is pulled back from the back and only pulling in it from the sides. >> this is beyond the east and west side portion. both sides. commissioner moore: correct. you have to create a landing around where the fireplace flue comes through and walk around that, go left, and null from there. force -- and pull in from there. commissioner miguel: can i ask for comment from project sponsor? >> so in looking at the proposal by ms. moore, it sounds like 3 feet in is what is being requested, which we specifically looked at the deck and we stood up -- not the deck, but the
7:55 am
roof, and looked at the sides and looked at whether it would be worth it to do something up there if we were to shrink the size. if you are going in 3 feet on that side, the whole way, there is still reducing the amount by a significant portion. one of the things that we suggested in our response to the discretionary -- in response for the application for discretionary review was to have essentially the parapet wall at 5 feet from the building and van a glass wall for the rest of the way. and that way it would still allow us to have the same amount of room on the deck and allowing light into our neighbor's property. commissioner moore: i appreciate your comment. i personally don't believe that is the glass is what addresses really my concern. it is really maximizing cheek to jowl buildings and pushing the deck all the way to the edge of the property line which i think is oppressive and not what i would like to see. i like us to have roof decks which operate within the area of
7:56 am
the rules in a manner they don't try to alter basically and even in the backs and the appearance of the buildings because most san francisco buildings given the small outside operate from the front and from the back. and as far as light, which is another part of the living area. that is a nature of the buildings. and if we have free-standing buildings, i would not be as much concern about it, bah because we are standing right next to each other, it is a big concern and it is not as much addressing your design but is a concern that you hear me speak about a lot on this commission. because i am really concerned about it. >> okay. there is still over 5 feet between the building and the next parallel wall. so it wouldn't be flush, just to make sure i am clear. and i know that we do have two lightwells in our own home and every window on the left side of the house faces this building and the building wall is significantly higher. we still do have substantial
7:57 am
amount of light and i am not sure if you have copies of the discretionary review of our lightwells but plants that are thriving in there and is definitely a warm area -- commissioner moore: thank you. >> commissioner moore, i want to verify you are making reference that you are not including the 6 foot portion that includes the spiral stairwell. commissioner moore: no, i did not. >> just the portion of the deck only. commissioner moore: that is correct. >> pulling in it three feet from the right-hand side if we are looking at the plan. >> just that -- >> i believe that is the west elevation. >> you don't have to do it on the other side? >> basically where living space and by necessity has to look up and to see that as a mazive addition to a building. and just a pure idea of looking up. >> about 3 feet by 14 or even
7:58 am
13. >> i want to make sure because we have gotten into this before, it is not the side of the stairway. it is the other side, but not the full length is what i hear you saying. commissioner moore: you can't. you have to go around the fire flue. >> and just that side that is abutting the rear yards to the houses. and that is 3 feet. by about 14. so allow them to circulate around the chimney. so it would be about 40 square feet you are losing. >> i am confused about which 40 square feet. you are talking about the side with the two window spaces? >> we are talking about the side that is away from the spiral staircase. >> that is the opposite side of the building where the d.r. requester is complaining about.
7:59 am
>> isn't his building abutting yours? >> he is on the other side. >> it is on the opposite side. the d.r. fileer is on the opposite side of where we are suggesting to move it in. commissioner moore: i don't think we can resolve this year. i would like to state it is a concern because if you live that way, it is absolutely horrible. and as a commission working with the department should develop more sensitized guidelines by which we encourage roof decks because it is a provision and expansion of usable open space. however, it has

49 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on